|
If not greed, what is the motivation for toxic waste dumping?
|
|
|
|
|
If not greed, then what is the cause of species going extinct or on the verge of going extinct due to poaching?
Sumatran rhino horn is now valued at $30,000 due to its dwindling supply. Nothing like a dwindling supply of Sumatran rhino horn, a sky rocketing price, coupled with greed to accelerate the demise of this species.
|
|
|
|
That is a terribly dangerous viewpoint, and it demonstrates how your lack of desire in exploring those topics in depth render you ability to propose and judge laws and policies with regard to ownership of property somewhat handicapped.
It's not dangerous if my property remains contained within the defined boundaries. It may be dangerous if it is not. I'm in the politics and society section. We're mainly speaking of philosophies. It would appear your muddying the two. Discussion of politics requires acknowledgement of the effects that society has on its future. How could you claim otherwise? This forum is not entitled "Philosophy". Just because your ideology hinges upon ignoring the messy details of the real world does not in fact render you immune from such criticisms about your ideology. Now, regarding this claim of yours: It's not dangerous if my property remains contained within the defined boundaries.
I suspect you really don't know many of the things that you might do on your property that have an effect beyond the boundaries of your property. Furthermore, have you considered that boundaries do not exist just in physical extent, but temporal extent as well? What is the temporal extent of your ownership? Ultimately, your ideology is short sighted due to your simplistic application of the meaning of ownership, which appears to be rather egocentric. |
|
|
|
Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?
I'm only interested in addressing those topics if they affect the property of others sans permission. If you can reasonably demonstrate that any one or all of those significantly affect the property of others, then we can have a discussion about what consequences could be directed at the person whose property effuses or emits unwanted material beyond its boundaries. That is a terribly dangerous viewpoint, and it demonstrates how your lack of desire in exploring those topics in depth render you ability to propose and judge laws and policies with regard to ownership of property somewhat handicapped. Besides, if you don't like what others do on their property (assuming their activities remain confined to the dimensions of said property), what makes your utility so much better than theirs?
Again, this is not an adequate and encompassing view. There are so many inter-dynamics occurring here that transcend the boundaries of one property and another. |
|
|
|
Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation? |
|
|
|
More absurdly, they think that this can be derived from a single, or at best, a handful of books that all spew the same basic, underlying ideology.
+1 Not only is it interesting that those books all say the same thing, more interesting is what they don't say. They are completely devoid of so much knowledge about the world, and it's inner workings. Challenge to libertarians: show me the bibliographies of your favorite libertarian book, and let's see how diverse and complete they are with regard to referencing well respected material on various subject matter. |
|
|
|
Accidents ≠ crime.
Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough. |
|
|
|
So, because I request a simple explanation of your philosophy so that I may judge, based on that, if it is worth further study, and do not wish to immediately invest several hundreds of hours in reading through century-old texts, I am not intellectually honest?
I believe I said that you're not actually qualified to judge any ideology other than your own precisely because you believe it is not necessary to learn anything outside the boundaries of what your ideology presupposes is necessary to know. |
|
|
|
|
The herd has spoken! One moos, and two more moo as well.
|
|
|
|
I said that data was statisticly insignificant, not that it didn't count. Keep putting words in my mouth, First Accent, and our congenial conversations are going to turn dark quick.
To me, a death or injury is statistically significant. |
|
|
|
Is it focused on mass shootings because you have somehow deemed that mass shootings are the only relevant data with regard to gun control?
No, it's focused on mass shootings because we are talking about mass shootings.  And thus your attempt to explain why you are only talking about mass shootings is essentially a tautology. |
|
|
|
Then you can leave the discussion to the rest of us, as others here obviously feel that there is more depth to the ideologies we favor.
And in your case, that ideology would be....? You still haven't explained that even in the one-sentence summary style of the above examples. You seem quite content to simply ridicule others' viewpoints, without expressing your own. You've started two threads so far to do so, in fact, and both have died on the vine because of your lack of interest. So man up and put your cards on the table, or go troll somewhere else. I ridicule your viewpoint precisely because it is founded within a vacuum of knowledge. It deserves ridicule. My ideology is to factor in knowledge to discuss solutions. I have tried to discuss solutions, but first, such discussion requires acknowledgement of that knowledge from those engaged in discussion. You advocate ignorance, thus you don't yet qualify, in my opinion, to discuss ideologies. If I simply proposed a solution, you would, from an unqualified viewpoint, render an opinion on it that is useless, precisely due to your willful ignorance of the data and mechanisms which support such a solution. |
|
|
|
From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings
Think that might be because the discussion is focusing on mass shootings? No. The title of the thread is "Guns". Are other gun deaths and injuries somehow not deaths and injuries? The thread is entitled "Guns", but the discussion is currently focusing on mass shootings, just like before, it focused on other aspects of the topic. Perhaps, one day, you may be brave enough to address the moral aspect. But I doubt it. Is it focused on mass shootings because you have somehow deemed that mass shootings are the only relevant data with regard to gun control? What if others feel compelled to point out specifically that guns as they relate to society actually should factor in other gun related deaths and injuries? Is the reason that other related gun deaths are not relevant to gun control because you feel it's appropriate that such gun death data and injuries are simply not important? That's a tautology. |
|
|
|
So all the written works of man within the realm of science, political science, economics, etc. can be explained simply and in a few sentences? Shall we burn all the books now, stop education, and simply trade a meme or two from here on? no, but most, if not all, political philosophies can be at least summarized in a few sentences, or even less. Witness: communism: a classless, stateless society where the means of production are held communally. market anarchy: a stateless society where private property is respected, and all services are rendered on the free market. libertarian government (aka minarchy, the night-watchman state): a state society where the role of the state is limited to the protection of its citizens, their property, and their rights. constitutional republic: a federal government with certain, delineated powers, and a number of member states, each allowed considerable autonomy in their governance. I could go on, but I have better things to do. I think you get the point. No, I don't get the point, because there is no point. The above is meaningless drivel without implementation details and the ramifications each has with regard to the existing knowledge base about the world. If it was as simple as the above one sentence summaries you posted, there would be nothing to discuss, and you wouldn't feel compelled to push your crackpot loon societal solution continuously. However, if you still insist that it is as simple as you insist, please stop posting, as you seem to feel that the above summary of your own favored ideology is adequate. Then you can leave the discussion to the rest of us, as others here obviously feel that there is more depth to the ideologies we favor. |
|
|
|
From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings
Think that might be because the discussion is focusing on mass shootings? No. The title of the thread is "Guns". Are other gun deaths and injuries somehow not deaths and injuries? |
|
|
|
Partially, yes. That's why I'm trying to do something about it. I have a host of things that need to be done that, if applied now, could start the fissuring of this corrupt system and see it's dissolution and the emergence of something better over the coming decade, but I have a lack (as in, presently 0) of like-minded 'foot solders' or even 'equals' who would like to help out. People can't think on timescales such as these and therefore believe themselves to be weak and powerless.
Here's some of the main ones:
* Move people to political mobilization by dispelling the myth of Libertarianism. Easier and easier now that more fair-minded people are seeing through the Paul-frauds.
* Crush the energy oligarchy that co-rules the world with various other oligarchical classes by convincing the far Left or "Green movement" that LFTR and nuclear research is the way to go for an actual functioning energy policy. This requires grass-roots mobilization as all the major institutions are financed and 'bought off'. But a lot here can be done and a growing movement has already begun for LFTR.
* ALL Economics that is taught today is apologetics and service to the monied interests. This includes: Marxism, Libertarianism, Anarchism (in so much as it is a Economic theory), Zeitgeistism (another fraud), The Washington (NeoLiberal) Consensus, Keynesianism, etc. Resurrect the American System of Political Economy. This is a Pro-Labor, Pro-Progress, Pro-Technological development, Pro-Peace "school" of economics that barely exists at present. Free the people from seeing themselves and their country as a slave to domestic and foreign Finance Capital.
Those are the main three tenants of what I see as the problems and solutions to be. If we are going to have any future or human destiny it is going to require that all these problems be addressed and there is no other way of addressing them than what I propose in this generalized sense. The specifics of who to fix these problems with these solutions a vast and ever-going conversation.
Ok, so here is what I would say. Think about what skills you have, think about how you can use that to create a replacement for some service that the governments, large corporations, "monied interests" (all three are the same) currently provide, and then create a superior alternative. The language you are using is too focused on destruction. Go back and read that post to discover how much space you devoted to complaining about the current problems vs how much you devoted to providing solutions. These large organizations need to be made irrelevant, piece by peice. Using any kind of violence or force as part of a solution is the least creative route. Further, this strategy has a really obvious history of blowback. Say what you will about the current system, but it has been relatively stable. Use this stability to your advantage. One could just as equally say that the Libertarian solution is no solution at all, as it ignores the complexity of the issues. Witness myrkul's general attitude regarding knowledge. A nuanced and effective solution requires some awareness and knowledge about the issues, and most importantly, how one simple proposed solution fails to address various issues (which myrkul and his camp are obviously unaware of due to voluntary ignorance). Most people in this forum are hobbiest political ignoramuses, including myrkul. The smartest people within this forum will favor the intake of knowledge before committing to a solution, and certainly wouldn't insist that a solution can be explained in a few sentences. |
|
|
|
(And no, I am not interested in sifting through hundreds of pages of text to decipher your beliefs. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein)
So all the written works of man within the realm of science, political science, economics, etc. can be explained simply and in a few sentences? Shall we burn all the books now, stop education, and simply trade a meme or two from here on? I don't believe Einstein had your brand of ignorance in mind when he made such a statement. |
|
|
|
And no, more data does not equal to less bias. Wikipedia is limiting itself to 'rampages' or 'mass killings' wherein one nutter goes off and starts shooting multiple people with whom s/he has no prior contact. The Brady Campaign includes a great deal of events that involved crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, organized crime, inter-famililar violence (such as spouse abuse), etc. In other words, they include a great deal of data on events that had causes/triggers having little or nothing to do with whether or not guns were used as the means to the end. Nor do they bother to gather the same data on such events that did not include a firearm. Again, the weapon is just a tool with a deliberate purpose. The most successful career muggers are almost invariablely those who use weapons other than a firearm within juristictions that make it difficult for an average citizen to carry a firearm. Usually knives. Ironically, we even have the effects of such events in US law, as it's illegal to import, manufacture or sell a knife that is intended to be opened with a single action; thus switchblades & 'butterfly' knives are banned in the US. I'm still waiting for the one armed war vet to sue for discrimination. They didn't blame the criminal element for using the best tools (in this case, switchblades & butterfly knives) available to them for their crimes, they again blamed the manufacturers of such tools for making their products too easy to use.
From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings, essentially deeming crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, family violence, and, I would add firearm accidents, as being irrelevant to the argument regarding gun control. And yet, you write this as well: I think that whether or not a armed population limits rampages or not is statistically insignificant overall, even though I'll admit up front that my own life's experiences bias myself toward believeing that mykerl is correct. I don't think that the practical argument is what really matters, as the results in either direction are not significant enough to overcome the predispositions on either side; as both yourself and myself are evidence of.
Here, you state that mass shootings are statistically insignificant. You seem to be contradicting yourself as to what is relevant with regard to gun injuries. Myrkul wishes to be selective. You wish to be entirely indifferent, or contradictory at best. Tell me now, would you be so indifferent or contradictory if you were one of the injured on Brady's list, or a friend or family member of one of the casualties on Brady's list? Certainly you wouldn't mind trading places with one of the affected in the theater shooting, given that you think such shootings are insignificant. Or perhaps you might wish to trade places with any of the affected on Brady's list that aren't designated a mass shooting, as you've said that that kind of data doesn't really count. |
|
|
|
Now that's a bias fail. The Brady Campaign isn't exactly a neutral data source, and one known for huge cherry picking of data sets in their own right. It's more data. Certainly 62 pages of data for seven or so years trumps myrkul's one page of data for forty some years. You think? Merge the data, if you so please. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
